SUPRAVA MOHANTY Vs. SANAT KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 4.11.2006 passed by the District Judge, Balasore in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2006 is assailed in this Writ Petition. According to the petitioner she married the opposite party according to caste customs on 7.12.2001. Initially the couple led a blissful married life but later on dissension cropped up. The opposite party -husband filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Civil Judge (SD), Balasore praying for dissolution of marriage by way of divorce. The said petition was registered as C.S.(MAT) No. 647 of 20044 which is sub judice.

(2.) IT appears from records that the said suit was posted to 2.3.2006 for reconciliation among the parties but that could not be materialized as the parties declined to live together. On the said date a Memorandum was filed by the petitioner -wife intimating the Court that while she was coming to Court the opposite party -husband threatening to murder her, attempted to kidnap her. Thereafter she filed a petition before the District Judge, Balasore under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as the aforesaid Misc. Case No. 31 of 2006 for transfer of the suit to the Court of the Civil Judge (SD), Bhadrak. The District Judge observing that only to suit the convenience of the defendant the plaintiff who has filed the suit should not be put to inconvenience, rejected the said Misc. Case by the impugned order.

(3.) THE submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner -wife were strongly repudiated by the learned Counsel for the opposite party -husband. It was submitted that all the averments of the petitioner -wife are false and have been made with an avowed oblique motive to harass the opposite party -husband. It was further submitted that the petitioner -wife was residing at Balasore as would be evident from the address furnished by her in the Vakalatnama executed by her. Thus there is no reason to transfer the suit to a Court at Bhadrak.